Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 603
Filter
Add filters

Document Type
Year range
1.
CMAJ Open ; 9(4): E1232-E1241, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1591622

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Limited space and resources are potential obstacles to infection prevention and control (IPAC) measures in in-centre hemodialysis units. We aimed to assess IPAC measures implemented in Quebec's hemodialysis units during the spring of 2020, describe the characteristics of these units and document the cumulative infection rates during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: For this cross-sectional survey, we invited leaders from 54 hemodialysis units in Quebec to report information on the physical characteristics of the unit and their perceptions of crowdedness, which IPAC measures were implemented from Mar. 1 to June 30, 2020, and adherence to and feasibility of appropriate IPAC measures. Participating units were contacted again in March 2021 to collect information on the number of COVID-19 cases in order to derive the cumulative infection rate of each unit. RESULTS: Data were obtained from 38 of the 54 units contacted (70% response rate), which provided care to 4485 patients at the time of survey completion. Fourteen units (37%) had implemented appropriate IPAC measures by 3 weeks after Mar. 1, and all 38 units had implemented them by 6 weeks after. One-third of units were perceived as crowded. General measures, masks and screening questionnaires were used in more than 80% of units, and various distancing measures in 55%-71%; reduction in dialysis frequency was rare. Data on cumulative infection rates were obtained from 27 units providing care to 4227 patients. The cumulative infection rate varied from 0% to 50% (median 11.3%, interquartile range 5.2%-20.2%) and was higher than the reported cumulative infection rate in the corresponding region in 23 (85%) of the 27 units. INTERPRETATION: Rates of COVID-19 infection among hemodialysis recipients in Quebec were elevated compared to the general population during the first year of the pandemic, and although hemodialysis units throughout the province implemented appropriate IPAC measures rapidly in the spring of 2020, many units were crowded and could not maintain physical distancing. Future hemodialysis units should be designed to minimize airborne and droplet transmission of infection.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Cross Infection/prevention & control , Disease Outbreaks/prevention & control , Infection Control , Renal Dialysis , COVID-19/epidemiology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Humans , Infection Control/methods , Infection Control/statistics & numerical data , Quebec/epidemiology , Renal Dialysis/adverse effects , Renal Dialysis/methods , Surveys and Questionnaires
2.
J Hosp Infect ; 113: 104-114, 2021 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1531580

ABSTRACT

Healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) are the most common adverse outcomes due to delivery of medical care. HAIs increase morbidity and mortality, prolong hospital stay, and are associated with additional healthcare costs. Contaminated surfaces, particularly those that are touched frequently, act as reservoirs for pathogens and contribute towards pathogen transmission. Therefore, healthcare hygiene requires a comprehensive approach whereby different strategies may be implemented together, next to targeted, risk-based approaches, in order to reduce the risk of HAIs for patients. This approach includes hand hygiene in conjunction with environmental cleaning and disinfection of surfaces and clinical equipment. This review focuses on routine environmental cleaning and disinfection including areas with a moderate risk of contamination, such as general wards. As scientific evidence has not yet resulted in universally accepted guidelines nor led to universally accepted practical recommendations pertaining to surface cleaning and disinfection, this review provides expert guidance for healthcare workers in their daily practice. It also covers outbreak situations and suggests practical guidance for clinically relevant pathogens. Key elements of environmental cleaning and disinfection, including a fundamental clinical risk assessment, choice of appropriate disinfectants and cleaning equipment, definitions for standardized cleaning processes and the relevance of structured training, are reviewed in detail with a focus on practical topics and implementation.


Subject(s)
Cross Infection , Disinfectants , Cross Infection/prevention & control , Delivery of Health Care , Disinfection , Equipment Contamination/prevention & control , Humans , Hygiene
3.
J Healthc Eng ; 2021: 1535046, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1506321

ABSTRACT

Objective: This research aimed to explore the application of a mathematical model based on deep learning in hospital infection control of novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pneumonia. Methods: First, the epidemic data of Beijing, China, were utilized to make a definite susceptible-infected-removed (SIR) model fitting to determine the estimated value of the COVID-19 removal intensity ß, which was then used to do a determined SIR model and a stochastic SIR model fitting for the hospital. In addition, the reasonable ß and γ estimates of the hospital were determined, and the spread of the epidemic in hospital was simulated, to discuss the impact of basal reproductive number changes, isolation, vaccination, and so forth on COVID-19. Results: There was a certain gap between the fitting of SIR to the remover and the actual data. The fitting of the number of infections was accurate. The growth rate of the number of infections decreased after measures, such as isolation, were taken. The effect of herd immunity was achieved after the overall immunity reached 70.9%. Conclusion: The SIR model based on deep learning and the stochastic SIR fitting model were accurate in judging the development trend of the epidemic, which can provide basis and reference for hospital epidemic infection control.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Cross Infection , Deep Learning , Cross Infection/epidemiology , Cross Infection/prevention & control , Humans , Models, Theoretical , SARS-CoV-2
4.
PLoS One ; 16(10): e0258662, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1496511

ABSTRACT

We aimed to apply the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) model to increase effectiveness and sustainability of the World Health Organization's (WHOs) hand hygiene (HH) guidelines within healthcare systems. Our cross-sectional, mixed-methods study took place at Jimma University Medical Center (JUMC), a tertiary care hospital in Jimma, Ethiopia, between November 2018 and August 2020 and consisted of three phases: baseline assessment, intervention, and follow-up assessment. We conducted questionnaires addressing HH knowledge and attitudes, interviews to identify HH barriers and facilitators within the SEIPS framework, and observations at the WHO's 5 moments of HH amongst healthcare workers (HCWs) at JUMC. We then implemented HH interventions based on WHO guidelines and results from our baseline assessment. Follow-up HH observations were conducted months later during the Covid-19 pandemic. 250 HCWs completed questionnaires with an average knowledge score of 61.4% and attitude scores indicating agreement that HH promotes patient safety. Interview participants cited multiple barriers to HH including shortages and location of HH materials, inadequate training, minimal Infection Prevention Control team presence, and high workload. We found an overall baseline HH compliance rate of 9.4% and a follow-up compliance rate of 72.1%. Drastically higher follow-up compared to baseline compliance rates were likely impacted by our HH interventions and Covid-19. HCWs showed motivation for patient safety despite low HH knowledge. Utilizing the SEIPS model helped identify institution-specific barriers that informed targeted interventions beyond WHO guidelines aimed at increasing effectiveness and sustainability of HH efforts.


Subject(s)
Hand Disinfection/methods , Hand Disinfection/trends , Hand Hygiene/methods , Adult , COVID-19/prevention & control , Cross Infection/prevention & control , Cross-Sectional Studies , Ethiopia , Female , Guideline Adherence/statistics & numerical data , Hand Hygiene/trends , Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice , Health Personnel/psychology , Humans , Infection Control/methods , Male , Pandemics/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2/pathogenicity , Surveys and Questionnaires , Tertiary Care Centers
5.
Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi ; 77(10): 1255-1258, 2021.
Article in Japanese | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1473734
6.
Infect Dis Clin North Am ; 35(4): 1055-1075, 2021 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1487740

ABSTRACT

Health care-acquired viral respiratory infections are common and cause increased patient morbidity and mortality. Although the threat of viral respiratory infection has been underscored by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, respiratory viruses have a significant impact in health care settings even under normal circumstances. Studies report decreased nosocomial transmission when aggressive infection control measures are implemented, with more success noted when using a multicomponent approach. Influenza vaccination of health care personnel furthers decrease rates of transmission; thus, mandatory vaccination is becoming more common. This article discusses the epidemiology, transmission, and control of health care-associated respiratory viral infections.


Subject(s)
Cross Infection/prevention & control , Cross Infection/virology , Respiratory Tract Infections/prevention & control , Respiratory Tract Infections/virology , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/transmission , Cross Infection/epidemiology , Cross Infection/transmission , Guideline Adherence , Health Personnel/standards , Humans , Infection Control/standards , Respiratory Tract Infections/epidemiology , Respiratory Tract Infections/transmission , SARS-CoV-2/pathogenicity , Vaccination , Viruses/classification , Viruses/pathogenicity
7.
Antimicrob Resist Infect Control ; 10(1): 150, 2021 10 21.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1484322

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Healthcare-associated infections (HCAIs) present a major public health problem that significantly affects patients, health care providers and the entire healthcare system. Infection prevention and control programs limit HCAIs and are an indispensable component of patient and healthcare worker safety. The clinical best practices (CBPs) of handwashing, screening, hygiene and sanitation of surfaces and equipment, and basic and additional precautions (e.g., isolation, and donning and removing personal protective equipment) are keystones of infection prevention and control (IPC). There is a lack of rigorous IPC economic evaluations demonstrating the cost-benefit of IPC programs in general, and a lack of assessment of the value of investing in CBPs more specifically. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to assess overall costs associated with each of the four CBPs. METHODS: Across two Quebec hospitals, 48 healthcare workers were observed for two hours each shift, for two consecutive weeks. A modified time-driven activity-based costing framework method was used to capture all human resources (time) and materials (e.g. masks, cloths, disinfectants) required for each clinical best practice. Using a hospital perspective with a time horizon of one year, median costs per CBP per hour, as well as the cost per action, were calculated and reported in 2018 Canadian dollars ($). Sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: A total of 1831 actions were recorded. The median cost of hand hygiene (N = 867) was 20 cents per action. For cleaning and disinfection of surfaces (N = 102), the cost was 21 cents per action, while cleaning of small equipment (N = 85) was 25 cents per action. Additional precautions median cost was $4.1 per action. The donning or removing or personal protective equipment (N = 720) cost was 76 cents per action. Finally, the total median costs for the five categories of clinical best practiced assessed were 27 cents per action. CONCLUSIONS: The costs of clinical best practices were low, from 20 cents to $4.1 per action. This study provides evidence based arguments with which to support the allocation of resources to infection prevention and control practices that directly affect the safety of patients, healthcare workers and the public. Further research of costing clinical best care practices is warranted.


Subject(s)
Cross Infection/prevention & control , Disinfection/economics , Hand Hygiene/economics , Hygiene/economics , Infection Control/economics , Adult , Canada , Female , Humans , Infection Control/statistics & numerical data , Male , Masks , Middle Aged , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Prospective Studies
8.
J Infect Dev Ctries ; 15(9): 1252-1256, 2021 09 30.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1478143

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic highlights the role of environmental cleaning in controlling infection transmission in hospitals. However, cleaning practice remains inadequate. An important component of effective cleaning is to obtain feedback on actual cleaning practice. This study aimed to evaluate the cleaning process quality from an implementation perspective. METHODOLOGY: An observational study was conducted in a tertiary public hospital in Wuhan, China and 92 cleaning processes of units housing patients with multidrug-resistant organism infections were recorded. The bed unit cleaning quality and floor cleaning quality were measured by six and five process indicators respectively. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the cleaning quality. RESULTS: For bed unit cleaning quality, the appropriate rates of cleaning sequence, adherence to cleaning unit principle, use of cloth, use of cloth bucket, separation of clean and contaminated tools, and disinfectant concentration were 35.9%, 71.7%, 89.7%, 11.5%, 65.4%, and 48.7%, respectively. For floor cleaning quality, the appropriate rates of adherence to cleaning unit principle, use of cloth, use of cloth bucket, separation of clean and contaminated tools, and disinfectant concentration were 13.4%, 50.0%, 35.5%, 11.0%, and 36.7%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The cleaning staff showed poor environmental cleaning quality, especially the floor cleaning quality. The findings can help reveal deficiencies in cleaning practices, raise awareness of these deficiencies, and inform targeted strategies to improve cleaning quality and hospital safety.


Subject(s)
Disinfection/methods , Infection Control/methods , China , Cross Infection/prevention & control , Cross-Sectional Studies , Disinfection/standards , Drug Resistance, Multiple, Bacterial , Guideline Adherence/statistics & numerical data , Hospitals, Public , Hospitals, Teaching , Infection Control/standards , Tertiary Care Centers
9.
Int J Hematol ; 114(6): 709-718, 2021 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1474138

ABSTRACT

Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests cannot always detect the SARS-CoV-2 virus, possibly due to differences in sensitivity between sample types. Under these circumstances, immunochromatography may serve as an alternative method to detect anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies that indicate a history of infection. In our analysis of patients with severe COVID-19 infection, we found that 14 of 19 serum samples were positive for IgG antibodies, whereas 6 of 10 samples from patients with asymptomatic or mild cases were negative. Two patients with immune thrombocytopenia who were treated with prednisolone experienced aggressive COVID-19-related respiratory failure and eventually died. Patients not in remission and those who received steroid-based chemotherapy had a higher risk of death, and patients with lymphoid malignancies including lymphoma and myeloma died in larger numbers than those with myeloid malignancies. A stricter cohorting strategy based on repeat PCR tests or isolation to a private room should be adopted in routine care in hematology departments to prevent viral spread to the environment.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Cross Infection/prevention & control , Hematologic Diseases/therapy , Antibodies, Viral/blood , Biomarkers/blood , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/prevention & control , Female , Hematologic Diseases/complications , Hematologic Diseases/mortality , Humans , Immunoassay/methods , Immunoglobulin G/blood , Infection Control/methods , Japan , Male , Patient Isolation , Polymerase Chain Reaction , Risk , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Severity of Illness Index , Survival Rate
10.
BMC Med ; 19(1): 211, 2021 08 27.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1470617

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Emergence of more transmissible SARS-CoV-2 variants requires more efficient control measures to limit nosocomial transmission and maintain healthcare capacities during pandemic waves. Yet the relative importance of different strategies is unknown. METHODS: We developed an agent-based model and compared the impact of personal protective equipment (PPE), screening of healthcare workers (HCWs), contact tracing of symptomatic HCWs and restricting HCWs from working in multiple units (HCW cohorting) on nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 transmission. The model was fit on hospital data from the first wave in the Netherlands (February until August 2020) and assumed that HCWs used 90% effective PPE in COVID-19 wards and self-isolated at home for 7 days immediately upon symptom onset. Intervention effects on the effective reproduction number (RE), HCW absenteeism and the proportion of infected individuals among tested individuals (positivity rate) were estimated for a more transmissible variant. RESULTS: Introduction of a variant with 56% higher transmissibility increased - all other variables kept constant - RE from 0.4 to 0.65 (+ 63%) and nosocomial transmissions by 303%, mainly because of more transmissions caused by pre-symptomatic patients and HCWs. Compared to baseline, PPE use in all hospital wards (assuming 90% effectiveness) reduced RE by 85% and absenteeism by 57%. Screening HCWs every 3 days with perfect test sensitivity reduced RE by 67%, yielding a maximum test positivity rate of 5%. Screening HCWs every 3 or 7 days assuming time-varying test sensitivities reduced RE by 9% and 3%, respectively. Contact tracing reduced RE by at least 32% and achieved higher test positivity rates than screening interventions. HCW cohorting reduced RE by 5%. Sensitivity analyses show that our findings do not change significantly for 70% PPE effectiveness. For low PPE effectiveness of 50%, PPE use in all wards is less effective than screening every 3 days with perfect sensitivity but still more effective than all other interventions. CONCLUSIONS: In response to the emergence of more transmissible SARS-CoV-2 variants, PPE use in all hospital wards might still be most effective in preventing nosocomial transmission. Regular screening and contact tracing of HCWs are also effective interventions but critically depend on the sensitivity of the diagnostic test used.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Cross Infection , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/transmission , Cross Infection/epidemiology , Cross Infection/prevention & control , Health Personnel , Humans , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control , Netherlands/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2
11.
PLoS One ; 16(10): e0257513, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1463306

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is associated with a high mortality rate in older adults; therefore, it is important for medical institutions to take measures to prevent severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission. This study aimed to assess the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection among healthcare workers (HCWs) and the effectiveness of infection control measures. METHODS: This study had a cross-sectional component and a prospective cohort component. The cross-sectional component comprised an anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody survey among HCWs at a medical center in Saitama City, Japan. In the prospective cohort component, HCWs at the same medical center were tested for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies monthly over a 3-month period (May to July 2020) to assess the effectiveness of infection prevention measures, including personal protective equipment use. All participants in the cohort study also participated in the antibody survey. The primary outcome was anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody (measured using Elecsys® Anti-SARS-CoV-2) positivity based on whether participants were engaged in COVID-19-related medical care. Other risk factors considered included occupational category, age, and sex. RESULTS: In total, 607 HCWs participated in the antibody survey and 116 doctors and nurses participated in the cohort study. Only one of the 607 participants in the survey tested positive for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. All participants in the cohort study were anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody negative at baseline and remained antibody negative. Engaging in the care of COVID-19 patients did not increase the risk of antibody positivity. During the study period, a total of 30 COVID-19 in-patients were treated in the hospital. CONCLUSIONS: The infection control measures in the hospital protected HCWs from nosocomially acquired SARS-CoV-2 infection; thus, HCWs should engage in COVID-19-related medical care with confidence provided that they adhere to infectious disease precautions.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/transmission , Cross Infection/prevention & control , Health Personnel , Infection Control/methods , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Adult , Antibodies, Viral/blood , Antibodies, Viral/immunology , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/virology , Cross Infection/blood , Cross Infection/virology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Hospitals , Humans , Immunoglobulin G/blood , Immunoglobulin G/immunology , Incidence , Japan/epidemiology , Male , Prospective Studies , Risk Factors , Seroepidemiologic Studies
12.
J Hosp Infect ; 117: 111-116, 2021 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1363293

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Hand hygiene remains both the major strategy and an ongoing challenge for infection control. The main issues in the sustainability of hand hygiene automatic monitoring are healthcare worker (HCW) turnover rates and declining participation. AIM: To assess hand hygiene compliance and the impact of real-time reminders over three years. METHODS: HCW compliance was observed for the use of alcohol-based hand rubs (AHR) on room entry and exit. Linear multi-level mixed models with time autocorrelations were performed to analyse the repeated measurements of daily room compliance and the effect of reminders over eight quarters (24 months). FINDINGS: In all, 111 HCWs were observed and 525,576 activities were identified in the database. There was an improvement in compliance both on room entry and exit over two years, and the rooms which had activated reminders had better performance than the rooms which did not have activated reminders. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed the benefit of using real-time reminders; even 20% of rooms with an activated reminder improved overall hand hygiene compliance. A randomized real-time reminder setting may be a potential solution in reducing user fatigue and enhancing HCW self-awareness.


Subject(s)
Cross Infection , Hand Hygiene , Cross Infection/prevention & control , Guideline Adherence , Hand Disinfection , Health Personnel , Humans , Infection Control
13.
Int J Environ Res Public Health ; 18(19)2021 Sep 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1444194

ABSTRACT

Hospitals are increasingly challenged by nosocomial infection (NI) outbreaks during the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Although standardized guidelines and manuals regarding infection prevention and control (IPC) measures are available worldwide, case-studies conducted at specified hospitals that are required to cope with real settings are limited. In this study, we analyzed three hospitals in Japan where large-scale NI outbreaks occurred for hints on how to prevent NI outbreaks. We reviewed openly available information from each hospital and analyzed it applying a three domain framework: operation management; identification of infection status; and infection control measures. We learned that despite having authorized infection control teams and using existing standardized IPC measures, SARS-CoV-2 may still enter hospitals. Early detection of suspected cases and confirmation by PCR test, carefully dealing with staff-to-staff transmission were the most essential factors to prevent NI outbreaks. It was also suggested that ordinary training on IPC for staff does not always provide enough practical knowledge and skills; in such cases external technical and operational supports are crucial. It is expected that our results will provide insights into preventing NI outbreaks of COVID-19, and contribute to mitigate the damage to health care delivery systems in various countries.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Cross Infection , Cross Infection/epidemiology , Cross Infection/prevention & control , Disease Outbreaks/prevention & control , Hospitals , Humans , Japan/epidemiology , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2
14.
Ann Biol Clin (Paris) ; 79(4): 325-330, 2021 Aug 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1412311

ABSTRACT

Health care workers (HCWs) are at major risk to be infected by SARS-CoV-2 and transmit the virus to the patients. Furthermore, travels are a major factor in the diffusion of the virus. We report our experience regarding the screening of asymptomatic HCWs returning from holidays, following the issue of a national guideline on 08/20/2020. The organization of the occupational health department and the clinical laboratory was adapted in order to start the screening on August, 24, 2020. All HCWs tested for SARS-CoV-2 the week before and 4 weeks after the implementation of the screening were included. The mean number of tests was analyzed per working day and working week. Overall, 502 (31.4%) HCWs were tested for SARS-CoV-2 during the study period. The mean number of HCWs tested per working day was 27.1. HCWs accounted for 36.9% (n = 167) and 11.2% (n = 84) of the tests performed in the 1st and the 4th week following the implementation of the guidelines. The number of tests performed each week in HCWs increased by at least 20-fold after the implementation of the guidelines. No asymptomatic HCW was tested positive. Screening of asymptomatic HCWs was poorly effective in the context of low circulation of the virus. We suggest giving priority to infection prevention and control measures and screening of symptomatic subjects and asymptomatic contacts.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Testing , COVID-19/diagnosis , Health Personnel , Asymptomatic Infections , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Testing/methods , COVID-19 Testing/standards , Cross Infection/prevention & control , France/epidemiology , Guideline Adherence/organization & administration , Guideline Adherence/standards , Guideline Adherence/statistics & numerical data , Health Personnel/statistics & numerical data , Hospitals, General , Humans , Implementation Science , Infection Control/methods , Infection Control/organization & administration , Infection Control/standards , Mass Screening/methods , Mass Screening/organization & administration , Mass Screening/standards , Occupational Health Services/organization & administration , Occupational Health Services/standards , Occupational Health Services/statistics & numerical data , Return to Work/statistics & numerical data , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification
15.
J Hosp Infect ; 116: 69-77, 2021 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1412285

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The real-world impact of breathing zone air purification and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) mitigation measures on healthcare-associated infections is not well documented. Engineering solutions to treat airborne transmission of disease may yield results in controlled test chambers or single rooms, but have not been reported on hospital-wide applications, and the impact of COVID-19 mitigation measures on healthcare-associated infection rates is unknown. AIM: To determine the impact of hospital-wide bioaerosol treatment and COVID-19 mitigation measures on clinical outcomes. METHODS: The impact of the step-wise addition of air disinfection technology and COVID-19 mitigation measures to standard multi-modal infection control on particle counts, viral and bacterial bioburden, and healthcare-associated infection rates was investigated in a 124-bed hospital (>100,000 patient-days over 30 months). FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION: The addition of air disinfection technology and COVID-19 mitigation measures reduced airborne ultrafine particles, altered hospital bioburden, and reduced healthcare-associated infections from 11.9 to 6.6 (per 1000 patient-days) and from 6.6 to 1.0 (per 1000 patient-days), respectively (P<0.0001, R2=0.86). No single technology, tool or procedure will eliminate healthcare-associated infections, but the addition of a ubiquitous facility-wide engineering solution at limited expense and with no alteration to patient, visitor or staff traffic or workflow patterns reduced infections by 45%. A similar impact was documented with the addition of comprehensive, restrictive, and labour- and material-intensive COVID-19 mitigation measures. To the authors' knowledge, this is the first direct comparison between traditional infection control, an engineering solution and COVID-19 mitigation measures.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Cross Infection , Cross Infection/prevention & control , Delivery of Health Care , Humans , Infection Control , SARS-CoV-2
16.
J Infect Dev Ctries ; 15(8): 1074-1079, 2021 08 31.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1405468

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Public life in China is gradually returning to normal with strong measures in coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) control. Because of the long-term effects of COVID-19, medical institutions had to make timely adjustments to control policies and priorities to balance between COVID-19 prevention and daily medical services. METHODOLOGY: The framework for infection prevention and control in the inpatient department was effectively organized at both hospital and department levels. A series of prevention and control strategies was implemented under this leadership: application of rigorous risk assessment and triage before admission through a query list; classifying patients into three risk levels and providing corresponding medical treatment and emergency handling; establishing new ward visiting criteria for visitors; designing procedures for PPE and stockpile management; executing specialized disinfection and medical waste policies. RESULTS: Till June 2020, the bed occupancy had recovered from 20.0% to 88.1%. In total, 13045 patients were received in our hospital, of which 54 and 127 patients were identified as high-risk and medium-risk, respectively, and 2 patients in the high-risk group were eventually laboratory-confirmed with COVID-19. No hospital-acquired infection of COVID-19 has been observed since the emergency appeared. CONCLUSIONS: The strategies ensured early detection and targeted prevention of COVID-19 following the COVID-19 pandemic, which improved the recovery of medical services after the pandemic.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Cross Infection/prevention & control , Hospitals/statistics & numerical data , Infection Control/methods , COVID-19/epidemiology , China/epidemiology , Cross Infection/epidemiology , Cross Infection/virology , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Hospitals/standards , Humans , Infection Control/instrumentation , Inpatients/statistics & numerical data , Patient Isolation/methods , Personal Protective Equipment , Risk Assessment , Triage
19.
Sci Rep ; 11(1): 12999, 2021 06 21.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1387481

ABSTRACT

An ever-increasing number of medical staff use mobile phones as a work aid, yet this may pose nosocomial diseases. To assess and report via a survey the handling practices and the use of phones by paediatric wards healthcare workers. 165 paediatric healthcare workers and staff filled in a questionnaire consisting of 14 questions (including categorical, ordinal and numerical data). Analysis of categorical data used non-parametric techniques such as the Chi-squared test. Although 98% of respondents (165 in total) report that their phones may be contaminated, 56% have never cleaned their devices. Of the respondents that clean their devices, 10% (17/165) had done so with alcohol swabs or disinfectant within that day or week; and an additional 12% respondents (20/165) within that month. Of concern, 52% (86/165) of the respondents use their phones in the bathroom, emphasising the unhygienic environments in which mobile phones/smartphones are constantly used. Disinfecting phones is a practice that only a minority of healthcare workers undertake appropriately. Mobile phones, present in billions globally, are therefore Trojan Horses if contaminated with microbes and potentially contributing to the spread and propagation of micro-organisms as per the rapid spread of SARS-CoV-2 virus in the world.


Subject(s)
Bathroom Equipment/virology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Cell Phone/instrumentation , Cross Infection/prevention & control , Delivery of Health Care/methods , Disinfection/methods , Hospitals, Pediatric , Personnel, Hospital , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/virology , Cross Infection/virology , Emergency Service, Hospital , Female , Hand Hygiene , Humans , Intensive Care Units, Neonatal , Male , Risk Factors , Self Report
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...